A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Thirsty Moth



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 15, 03:29 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Thirsty Moth

Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg


--
PeterN
  #2  
Old July 22nd 15, 03:48 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Thirsty Moth

On 2015-07-22 02:29:14 +0000, PeterN said:

Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg


Peter, Peter, Peter....
You used the TC-17 didn't you?

Then you made the usual severe crop, over-sharpened, and you have left
noise which is neither grain nor bokeh.

To me it is another fortuitous capture spoilt.

I am also a little baffled by the oddity in white under the bulb.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #3  
Old July 22nd 15, 04:44 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default Thirsty Moth

PeterN:

Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg


Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks
over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac
or an imitation? It has a lot of noise in the background, maybe from
the sharpening. The lower left quadrant has artifacts of some sort. You
marred it with a copyright notice in the ROI rather than at an edge. If
you don't want it downloaded, don't upload it!

Finally, you failed to identify the species. It's Epargyreus clarus,
Silver-spotted Skipper http://eol.org/pages/184797/overview.

Nice pic, though!

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #4  
Old July 22nd 15, 11:58 AM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
dadiOH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Thirsty Moth

PeterN wrote:
Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg


Way overworked.


  #5  
Old July 22nd 15, 01:53 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Thirsty Moth


| Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks
| over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac
| or an imitation?

It's in the EXIF data:

Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D800
Softwa Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)

But that implies it was taken as JPG. I haven't
researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
seem to generally show over-compression when
viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
would probably still be visible at full size.

Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?
Wasn't that format a poor choice in the first place,
due simply to the need to have a universally supported
format for casually taken photos? Why would anyone
who's actually going to work on the photo not
shoot RAW?
I'm curious about the opinions of more experienced
people about these questions.


  #6  
Old July 22nd 15, 02:01 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Thirsty Moth

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Here's what it /looks/ like to me. It looks
| over-sharpened/over-processed. Are you using Photoshop or brand X? Mac
| or an imitation?

It's in the EXIF data:

Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D800
Softwa Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)

But that implies it was taken as JPG.


no it doesn't.

the exif data is preserved when editing.

I haven't
researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
seem to generally show over-compression when
viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
would probably still be visible at full size.


only if it's a low quality jpeg.

Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?


of course not. where did you get that ridiculous idea?

Wasn't that format a poor choice in the first place,
due simply to the need to have a universally supported
format for casually taken photos? Why would anyone
who's actually going to work on the photo not
shoot RAW?


they would shoot raw, however, they still need to convert it to a jpeg
to post the image.
  #7  
Old July 22nd 15, 02:44 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Thirsty Moth


| But that implies it was taken as JPG.
|
| no it doesn't.
| the exif data is preserved when editing.

So RAW contains EXIF data? I didn't know that.
Personally I always save anything as TIFF or BMP
until such time as I need to transfer a small file for
online use. I don't pay much attention to EXIF data.
So it hadn't occurred to me that RAW may embed
EXIF data.

So... you have EXIF data in all of your images, and
RAW contains EXIF data? Do you take most images
in RAW and save them that way until posting them
online or printing?

| I haven't
| researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
| seem to generally show over-compression when
| viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
| but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
| data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
| this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
| would probably still be visible at full size.
|
| only if it's a low quality jpeg.
|
| Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?
|
| of course not.

Because JPG is by definition low quality. At the
time cameras were coming out PNG was not widely
supported, and PNG doesn't compress as well. JPG
was/is supported on all major OSs. JPG was really
designed to optimize file size with "tolerable" loss of
quality. Great for the Web, but questionable
for photographs.

I got thinking about this last week because I
was testing out some image resizing code and had
some test images. They were not top quality, but
they're pretty good:

Panasonic DMC-ZS25
4608x3456 at just under 6 MB each. I expect they'd
look fine printed as postcard size, but when zooming
in, and in some cases at normal size viewing, I can
see rectangles. I doubt that any camera taking JPGs
saves the images with no loss at all. I'm not sure it's
even possible to save a JPG with zero loss, even at the
"100" quality level. (Though I'm not certain about that.)


  #8  
Old July 22nd 15, 03:09 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Thirsty Moth

On 2015-07-22 13:44:54 +0000, "Mayayana" said:


| But that implies it was taken as JPG.
|
| no it doesn't.
| the exif data is preserved when editing.

So RAW contains EXIF data? I didn't know that.


If RAW didn't have EXIF and other metadata, where did you think it
magically came from?

Personally I always save anything as TIFF or BMP
until such time as I need to transfer a small file for
online use. I don't pay much attention to EXIF data.
So it hadn't occurred to me that RAW may embed
EXIF data.


Why BMP?

So... you have EXIF data in all of your images, and
RAW contains EXIF data? Do you take most images
in RAW and save them that way until posting them
online or printing?


All my shooting is RAW, and occasionalty RAW+JPEG. Since my workflow is
Lightroom+ Photoshop I have no need to print from JPEG, and so I don't
have to concern myself with compression artifacts in the prints. For
posting online I export to JPEG from Lightroom.

| I haven't
| researched different cameras, but JPGs I see
| seem to generally show over-compression when
| viewed at full size. They look great viewed small,
| but when viewed full size it's clear that a lot of
| data is already gone in the initial save. So even if
| this image were not oversharpened, little rectangles
| would probably still be visible at full size.
|
| only if it's a low quality jpeg.
|
| Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?
|
| of course not.

Because JPG is by definition low quality. At the
time cameras were coming out PNG was not widely
supported, and PNG doesn't compress as well. JPG
was/is supported on all major OSs. JPG was really
designed to optimize file size with "tolerable" loss of
quality. Great for the Web, but questionable
for photographs.

I got thinking about this last week because I
was testing out some image resizing code and had
some test images. They were not top quality, but
they're pretty good:


I make any critical resizing to ACR/Lightroom processed RAW in PS, or
with On1 Perfect Resize. All JPEGs for online posting are resized via
the Lightroom export dialog. The result for me is, I don't have any
JPEGs saved in Lightroom, they are only found in Dropbox, Adobe
Creative Cloud, and my archives for those two cloud services.

Panasonic DMC-ZS25
4608x3456 at just under 6 MB each. I expect they'd
look fine printed as postcard size, but when zooming
in, and in some cases at normal size viewing, I can
see rectangles. I doubt that any camera taking JPGs
saves the images with no loss at all. I'm not sure it's
even possible to save a JPG with zero loss, even at the
"100" quality level. (Though I'm not certain about that.)



--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #9  
Old July 22nd 15, 03:15 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Thirsty Moth

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| But that implies it was taken as JPG.
|
| no it doesn't.
| the exif data is preserved when editing.

So RAW contains EXIF data? I didn't know that.


of course it does. anything coming out of a camera contains exif data
(unless it's a super-****ty camera).

Personally I always save anything as TIFF or BMP
until such time as I need to transfer a small file for
online use. I don't pay much attention to EXIF data.
So it hadn't occurred to me that RAW may embed
EXIF data.


why would anyone use bmp?

So... you have EXIF data in all of your images, and
RAW contains EXIF data? Do you take most images
in RAW and save them that way until posting them
online or printing?


i shoot raw but others might not.

posting obviously must be jpg but for printing, they're directly
printed from raw.

there's nothing wrong with shooting jpeg, especially if the images are
going to not be processed all that much. for example, ebay photos.

| Isn't the whole idea of saving as JPG outdated?
|
| of course not.

Because JPG is by definition low quality.


no it isn't. high quality jpeg is indistinguishable from the original.

At the
time cameras were coming out PNG was not widely
supported, and PNG doesn't compress as well.


png still doesn't compress well.

JPG
was/is supported on all major OSs. JPG was really
designed to optimize file size with "tolerable" loss of
quality. Great for the Web, but questionable
for photographs.


nonsense. jpeg is *designed* for photographs. what do you think the
second letter represents?

where jpeg doesn't work well are synthetic images, such as computer
generated graphics.

I got thinking about this last week because I
was testing out some image resizing code and had
some test images. They were not top quality, but
they're pretty good:

Panasonic DMC-ZS25
4608x3456 at just under 6 MB each. I expect they'd
look fine printed as postcard size, but when zooming
in, and in some cases at normal size viewing, I can
see rectangles.


then set the quality higher.

I doubt that any camera taking JPGs
saves the images with no loss at all. I'm not sure it's
even possible to save a JPG with zero loss, even at the
"100" quality level. (Though I'm not certain about that.)


it's close enough to 0 to where it is not noticeable (assuming you
choose the highest quality).
  #10  
Old July 22nd 15, 04:26 PM posted to alt.photography,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default Thirsty Moth

On 7/21/2015 10:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-22 02:29:14 +0000, PeterN said:

Two weeks ago I saw this thirsty moth. As usual all constructive
comments are appreciated.
The image was saved in medium quality.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150704_Lomgwood_0299.jpg


Peter, Peter, Peter....
You used the TC-17 didn't you?


Yep!


Then you made the usual severe crop, over-sharpened, and you have left
noise which is neither grain nor bokeh.


A serious, but not severe crop. Oversharpen, yes, I see that now that
you point it out.


To me it is another fortuitous capture spoilt.

I already see some corrections I have to make.

I am also a little baffled by the oddity in white under the bulb.

That is a rainwater drop, that I messed up.
thanks for your comments.


--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Super Zoom's Moth Dudley Hanks[_4_] Digital Photography 1 November 18th 10 02:40 AM
Just a pretty moth Nervous Nick Digital Photography 2 April 5th 07 08:14 AM
What type of moth? [email protected] Digital Photography 8 May 30th 06 05:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.